2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[Mondio]

Well at least we can forget about your ball control argument.

Not sure what your point is about why a team controlling the ball "last" has an advantage. You are assuming they will always score with no time left on the clock? How many times did you see MM start calling timeouts while on defense at the end of the 2nd or 4th quarter, thinking he would get the ball back, sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't.

Stats show that the team having the ball first in OT win more than they lose, so if you are fine with that, not sure why you and I are discussing this. If OT wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be discussed at the end of every season.

This reminds me of instant replay, which I am sure when it first came out, you said was stupid. Now any changes discussed to improve it, are also stupid?

I understand the old adage of "if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it", but in the case of replay and overtime, there sure seems to be a lot of people thinking both are broke.

A shortened time period would absolutely favor a ball control offense in some situations, just like getting the ball first benefited the patriots against a porous Chiefs defense. But in the next situation having the ball first did not benefit the Saints as they turned it over. Anyway, that's kind of my point, some situations will favor any team. the 2nd team, if they stop them early, have a great kick coverage and stuff them, etc get great starting field positions. one team might have to start at the 10, the next starts at the 50. Fair?

So you kick off to both teams. That's fine and great. I don't care if they do really. It's not that I think it's "stupid", i think it doesn't FIX anything. It doesn't make it more fair. It doesn't do any of that, it just makes it different. Because if you kick to both teams and make them both go for 2 and they both score 8 points. Now you're still tied. Now what? again? Keep going until there's a winner? Now the next 4 possessions are non scores, but on the 5th there is by the team that had the ball 1st in OT. Now what? they've had an extra possession, give the other team a chance too?

The Captain says 20% of possessions result in TD's, and I believe that's accurate. Expecting a defense to prevent one in OT is not asking for a miracle, unless of course your team has a ****** defense. In which case, that's the breaks. Get a better defense, or score more points to begin with.

Football isn't "fair". what if you build your teams to play in the cold and mud, because that's where you finish your season and then you have to play a Super Bowl in Miami against Tampa Bay? you think that doesn't favor someone? Half of what makes football great is meeting challenges and overcoming them. I don't see how giving a team an untimed possession is more fair. It won't be the case every time, but it certainly can be the case some of the time. Just like the team with the ball first wins, some of the time, but it isn't the case all of the time, as it's barely above 50%. It's fair enough for me. The game has been played. Determine a winner. to date I have seen nothing better proposed, so you're right, why change it? just because?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To you point, a team not having to worry about the clock at the end of the fourth quarterbis a distinct advantage though.

I think one could view it as an advantage, if you are under the mindset that a tied game needs to be restarted, in order to be fair, at the end of the 4th quarter. Also, it would be an "advantage" that the team earned playing football, not one given to them with the toss of a coin.

 

[Mondio]

I think one could view it as an advantage, if you are under the mindset that a tied game needs to be restarted, in order to be fair, at the end of the 4th quarter. Also, it would be an "advantage" that the team earned playing football, not one given to them with the toss of a coin.

an advantage the team also playing football in the first half didn't have. Time can run out on them. But not the other? why even end the period. How about 3 posessions per quarter, no punts, no kickoffs and everyone starts at their own 25? Let's change it all.

 

[elcid]

It is absolutely ridiculous that in the NFL a team can miss its chance to get the ball in OT if the opponent scores a TD. I see OT like penalties in regular football. Would you consider it to be fair if the penalty shootout would be over after the first man up would score? Of course not. I understand the argument of some saying well your D should be better, but in a league that is constantly changing its rules to produce more offensively-oriented football, while also increasing the amount of rules in the interest of player safety (which I wholeheartedly endorse, yet makes life undeniably harder for a defense) the other team should ALWAYS get a chance to get the ball back.

I agree with the OP that OT should have no time restrictions, but also for the sake of player safety I would leave kickoffs and punt plays precisely as they are.

 

[Mondio]

It is absolutely ridiculous that in the NFL a team can miss its chance to get the ball in OT if the opponent scores a TD. I see OT like penalties in regular football. Would you consider it to be fair if the penalty shootout would be over after the first man up would score? Of course not. I understand the argument of some saying well your D should be better, but in a league that is constantly changing its rules to produce more offensively-oriented football, while also increasing the amount of rules in the interest of player safety (which I wholeheartedly endorse, yet makes life undeniable harder for a defense) the other team should ALWAYS get a chance to get the ball back.

I agree with the OP that OT should have no time restrictions, but also for the sake of player safety I would leave kickoffs and punt plays precisely as they are.

I get that, but you're still left with the potential of un-even possessions. What happens when neither scores on their first possession? and then the team that got it first gets a short field on a punt runs 2 plays and kicks a game winning FG? Now they've had 2 possessions and the other team only 1. What's fair?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get that, but you're still left with the potential of un-even possessions. What happens when neither scores on their first possession? and then the team that got it first gets a short field on a punt runs 2 plays and kicks a game winning FG? Now they've had 2 possessions and the other team only 1. What's fair?

You could say that about an entire game, I think you would be hard pressed to find games where each team had the exact same # of possessions. Let the # of possessions in OT figure themselves out naturally or by the restraints of a clock, but having a system that sets up a situation where one team could be denied even 1 possession, is far from fair in my opinion.

 

[elcid]

I get that, but you're still left with the potential of un-even possessions. What happens when neither scores on their first possession? and then the team that got it first gets a short field on a punt runs 2 plays and kicks a game winning FG? Now they've had 2 possessions and the other team only 1. What's fair?

If both teams fail to score on their first possession, I'd personally be advocating that a score (be it a TD or a FG) will end the game. Sudden death so to speak. Situations like the one you described may arise, yet won't be common im guessing. There would still be some merit in winning the coin toss, yet significantly smaller than before.

I'd like the NFL to try that for the coming season. If in 2019 it will result in too many OT's ending in the way you described, they could always tweak it to the point where only a TD wins the game for the season after. Teams will have to decide for themselves how far up the field they will have to be in order to go for it on 4th down. This might result in longer and more tiresome OT's, but at least each team would have had the chance to score and can only blame themselves for not doing so if they'd lose.

 

[Mondio]

If both teams fail to score on their first possession, I'd personally be advocating that a score (be it a TD or a FG) will end the game. Sudden death so to speak. Situations like the one you described may arise, yet won't be common im guessing. There would still be some merit in winning the coin toss, yet significantly smaller than before.

I'd like the NFL to try that for the coming season. If in 2019 it will result in too many OT's ending in the way you described, they could always tweak it to the point where only a TD wins the game for the season after. Teams will have to decide for themselves how far up the field they will have to be in order to go for it on 4th down. This might result in longer and more tiresome OT's, but at least each team would have had the chance to score and can only blame themselves for not doing so if they'd lose.

But it's not really significant now. It's only 52%, coin toss winner, wins. and i'm not even sure that's on 1st possession or just overall.

 

[elcid]

But it's not really significant now. It's only 52%, coin toss winner, wins. and i'm not even sure that's on 1st possession or just overall.

I have missed the part where the 52% comes from, however I can only assume it as a number calculated from all OT's that have happened in (recent) football. I have no idea how many OT's there have been in modern day football, but in my own experience I have seen the Packers in 7 since I have started watching them back in 2013. Losing against Seattle and Arizona when we lost the coin toss (and playing away), winning vs the Bucs, Jets and Browns when we won the coin toss (and playing at home) and 2 ties vs the Vikings (both at home, in which we both won and lost a coin toss). My point is, I'd like to see a metric in which we measure the % of times the coin toss winner (given they play at home) wins OT as I think this metric would be less balanced.

Given that some of our roughest losses came in the playoffs I'd especially like to see each team have a chance to score in January. The lower seed is already playing under more pressure when visiting a higher seeded team, and to be denied a chance to score is as heartbreaking of an experience as I have endured as a fan. Its nothing I would wish upon any other fan of any team. The Packers have been to the playoffs quite often recently, can you imagine if a team like the Bucs or Browns gets eliminated the way we got eliminated in Arizona? On the other hand, a higher seeded team (or home team) should always have the chance to retaliate if the visitor were to score on their opening TD drive as I can only imagine this would be equally heartbreaking.

 

[Mondio]

Losing in the playoffs is always heartbreaking. I'm ok with playing the game, and if there is no winner, determining one in OT. I like the added, "do or die" in OT myself. I think making it end on a TD is a nice touch, but making a FG something that continues the game for at least 1 more possession. you can't feel the thrill of victory without the the potential of agony in defeat.

Teams work hard for homefield advantage, no reason to negate it. It makes winning on the road that much sweeter.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have missed the part where the 52% comes from, however I can only assume it as a number calculated from all OT's that have happened in (recent) football.

This most recent article, I assume with updated stats, states that the team winning the coin toss in OT wins 55% of the time. So statistically, that is 10% more than a team that loses the toss. That to me is a significant advantage.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/21/18191497/chiefs-patriots-overtime-nfl-rules

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

It would be impossible to draw the line on which plays are allowed to be challenged though.

All penalties should be challengeable. If a coach doesn't like a roughing the passer call that just gave his opponent a fresh set of downs or wiped out an interception as happened in Clay's case, he should be allowed to throw the red flag in protest of that and have the replay man in New York review it. I'd be willing to bet the number of bogus unnecessary roughness penalties that have been being called in today's league would be overturned at a dramatic rate if they were allowed to be challenged.

So yes, make any kind of play challengeable.

If Goodell doesn't like that, then use robots to officiate.

 

[Mondio]

This most recent article, I assume with updated stats, states that the team winning the coin toss in OT wins 55% of the time. So statistically, that is 10% more than a team that loses the toss. That to me is a significant advantage.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/21/18191497/chiefs-patriots-overtime-nfl-rules

5% more than a coinflip, barely significant. and there is an 80% chance the defense should hold them to a FG or less on an offensive possession. 80% vs making a change for 5%. and is that even 55% on the first possession? If not, it's even less significant to the point, it's really pointless.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think one could view it as an advantage, if you are under the mindset that a tied game needs to be restarted, in order to be fair, at the end of the 4th quarter. Also, it would be an "advantage" that the team earned playing football, not one given to them with the toss of a coin.

By no means do I consider the current overtime rules to be perfect but a team not having to worry about the clock in a tied game at the end of regulation would definitely be worse.

It is absolutely ridiculous that in the NFL a team can miss its chance to get the ball in OT if the opponent scores a TD. I see OT like penalties in regular football. Would you consider it to be fair if the penalty shootout would be over after the first man up would score?

You realize that in soccer approximately 90% of penalties result in a goal, don't you??? That makes it way tougher to stop than an NFL offense.

But it's not really significant now. It's only 52%, coin toss winner, wins. and i'm not even sure that's on 1st possession or just overall.

I have missed the part where the 52% comes from, however I can only assume it as a number calculated from all OT's that have happened in (recent) football.

Actually the winning percentage since the league changed the overtime rule to its current format is at 50.9% for teams that received the ball first, including both championship games from this season.

This most recent article, I assume with updated stats, states that the team winning the coin toss in OT wins 55% of the time. So statistically, that is 10% more than a team that loses the toss. That to me is a significant advantage.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/21/18191497/chiefs-patriots-overtime-nfl-rules

The number from the article you posted is from after the 2017 season.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/2/6/...s-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c

As I've posted above I went through every overtime game since the league adapted the current rule and teams that have received the opening kickoff have won 50.9% of those games.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

All penalties should be challengeable. If a coach doesn't like a roughing the passer call that just gave his opponent a fresh set of downs or wiped out an interception as happened in Clay's case, he should be allowed to throw the red flag in protest of that and have the replay man in New York review it. I'd be willing to bet the number of bogus unnecessary roughness penalties that have been being called in today's league would be overturned at a dramatic rate if they were allowed to be challenged.

So yes, make any kind of play challengeable.

If Goodell doesn't like that, then use robots to officiate.

Judgement calls would still remain jugdement calls with a different set of eyes taking a look at the play, in most cases not making it any better.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

5% more than a coinflip, barely significant. and there is an 80% chance the defense should hold them to a FG or less on an offensive possession. 80% vs making a change for 5%. and is that even 55% on the first possession? If not, it's even less significant to the point, it's really pointless.

Problem is, you are confusing the randomness of something outside your control (coin flip) with something that is within your control (making a defensive stop).

 

[Mondio]

Problem is, you are confusing the randomness of something outside your control (coin flip) with something that is within your control (making a defensive stop).

What's confusing about it. You think a coin flip is determining these games, when it's not and even if it is, it's 5% or less. Something directly in a teams control puts it at 80% or better they at least get an opportunity on offense. For some reason you think that is "unfair"?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Actually the winning percentage since the league changed the overtime rule to its current format is at 50.9% for teams that received the ball first, including both championship games from this season.

The number from the article you posted is from after the 2017 season.

Actually, The 55% number I got was from this article, which was dated Jan 21, 2019.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/21/18191497/chiefs-patriots-overtime-nfl-rules

This other recent article says 52.7% LOL

https://sports.yahoo.com/coin-toss-remain-important-ot-195549852.html

I probably would lean more towards you numbers Captain, even though they are lower than I have ever seen.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What's confusing about it. You think a coin flip is determining these games, when it's not and even if it is, it's 5% or less. Something directly in a teams control puts it at 80% or better they at least get an opportunity on offense. For some reason you think that is "unfair"?

Again, I never said the coin flip is determining a game, I said that statistically it gives one team an unearned advantage, unless you consider having a coin land your way as being earned. How would you feel if they did a second coin flip to determine who gets what end of the field? They don't, because in some stadiums it is a distinct advantage to be going in one direction for OT. So they try to use that to balance out the advantage gained by the team winning the coin toss and choosing first. Dome stadium, advantage probably lost.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Actually, The 55% number I got was from this article, which was dated Jan 21, 2019.

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/21/18191497/chiefs-patriots-overtime-nfl-rules

This other recent article says 52.7% LOL

https://sports.yahoo.com/coin-toss-remain-important-ot-195549852.html

I probably would lean more towards you numbers Captain, even though they are lower than I have ever seen.

While the article you posted was from only several weeks ago they used numbers from another one written after the 2017 season.

I will double check those numbers again at some point next week but am pretty confident I got it close to correct the last time around

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

5% more than a coinflip, barely significant.

LOL....ask Vegas how significant a 55-45 spread is.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While the article you posted was from only several weeks ago they used numbers from another one written after the 2017 season.

I will double check those numbers again at some point next week but am pretty confident I got it close to correct the last time around

Thanks. Like I said, I assumed since the article was new, they would have at least used updated stats. But as we all know, anything can be considered "fair" by some, to try and prove a point.

As I alluded to in my other post, it would be interesting to know if those stats fluctuate with the stadium. Some stadiums/windy days, its a distinct advantage to be able to pick which end you defend. This advantage I am sure at times could offset the advantage of receiving the ball first.

 

[Mondio]

LOL....ask Vegas how significant a 55-45 spread is.

LOL back at you. 5% more than 50/50 chance or 80% chance they hold them to a FG or less?

actually less than 5% and have we determined if that is just in general or they win on the very first and only possession?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL back at you. 5% more than 50/50 chance or 80% chance they hold them to a FG or less?

and I get that, but the 80% odds are something a team has the ability to effect. A coin flip, not so much.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL back at you. 5% more than 50/50 chance or 80% chance they hold them to a FG or less?

actually less than 5% and have we determined if that is just in general or they win on the very first and only possession?

Maybe you and I should have just started out our discussion with "lets flip a coin, whoever calls it correctly, wins the discussion"?